Over the last few weeks, many Coloradans could go outside their homes and see smoke from wildfires. In Fort Collins, Boulder, Colorado Springs and Durango, cars were packed in driveways, waiting for possible evacuation. People lost homes, the wildlife that could run did, and we saw elk, deer and bears fleeing through neighborhoods desperate to escape the blazes. It was a frightening time...

One should not forget part of the Xcel rate increase is to pay off the new billion dollar coal fired plant.The sooner capital investment is put into new grid infrastructure the less long term rates will be and the cleaner the long term system will be.

And the environmentalist lobby has prevented lumber/logging companies from going into our forests and clearing out the dead trees which are the basis for the tinderboxes.

"Whether you believe man is contributing significantly to climate change or not, there is no doubt that the earth is warming, and carbon dioxide is a key culprit."

Actually, there is a great deal of doubt about: A) the earth is warming, and B) carbon dioxide is a key culprit. The "science" about climate change has been lied about through falsified studies, and has been debunked over and over again.

The current state of commercial solar energy is at best a mess, and at worst a total political and economic fraud. Note the solar energy companies that were recipients of Obama's free-money giveaway, and who are not shut down through bankruptcy.

Yes indeed, it will be nice when solar energy and other renewable energy sources are commercially viable. And the day may come when that is so. But that day is not at hand. How much of Excel Energy's acquiescence to the renewable energy crowd is simply a politically expedient move, in an attempt to keep that crowd from hampering Excel's business?

Obama's EPA assault on our current energy sources is going to raise the cost of electricity to countless people, beginning in 2014, when most of his new regulations go into effect. This is going to hit the average consumer hard in the wallet.

Yawn. Another feel-good piece about a technology that is not economically competitive without government mandates and tax payer subsidies.

We only have their word about the rate increases and what will come. Radical environmentalists are always pitching the line that they know what is best for us. They love to spend our money on their pet projects.

Mike_In_hartsel wrote:Yawn. Another feel-good piece about a technology that is not economically competitive without government mandates and tax payer subsidies.

We only have their word about the rate increases and what will come. Radical environmentalists are always pitching the line that they know what is best for us. They love to spend our money on their pet projects.

Dirty energy only APPEARS to be cheaper because it can transfer the cost of it's pollution and emissions to the rest of us. If made to for these externalities, dirty energy would be seen for what it really is: very expensive...

PhilLeshFan wrote:"Bark beetle infestations, exacerbated by warmer winters, have turned forests into tinderboxes."...The current state of commercial solar energy is at best a mess, and at worst a total political and economic fraud. Note the solar energy companies that were recipients of Obama's free-money giveaway, and who are not shut down through bankruptcy.

Yes indeed, it will be nice when solar energy and other renewable energy sources are commercially viable. And the day may come when that is so. But that day is not at hand. How much of Excel Energy's acquiescence to the renewable energy crowd is simply a politically expedient move, in an attempt to keep that crowd from hampering Excel's business?...Obama's EPA assault on our current energy sources is going to raise the cost of electricity to countless people, beginning in 2014, when most of his new regulations go into effect. This is going to hit the average consumer hard in the wallet.

Abound, Solyndra did get millions in support. But that pales in comparison to the monies that dirty energy gets. And dirty energy's money is in a much more palatable form for people (like you??) who are slaves to outward appearances - it comes in the form not of a check with a specific dollar amount on it, but in being allowed to dump their emissions and pollution on the rest of us FOR FREE.

As the credit card add would say about these subsidies:Abound: $60 MSolyndra: $500+MDirty Energy: Priceless.....

PhilLeshFan wrote:"Bark beetle infestations, exacerbated by warmer winters, have turned forests into tinderboxes."...The current state of commercial solar energy is at best a mess, and at worst a total political and economic fraud. Note the solar energy companies that were recipients of Obama's free-money giveaway, and who are not shut down through bankruptcy.

Yes indeed, it will be nice when solar energy and other renewable energy sources are commercially viable. And the day may come when that is so. But that day is not at hand. How much of Excel Energy's acquiescence to the renewable energy crowd is simply a politically expedient move, in an attempt to keep that crowd from hampering Excel's business?...Obama's EPA assault on our current energy sources is going to raise the cost of electricity to countless people, beginning in 2014, when most of his new regulations go into effect. This is going to hit the average consumer hard in the wallet.

Abound, Solyndra did get millions in support. But that pales in comparison to the monies that dirty energy gets. And dirty energy's money is in a much more palatable form for people (like you??) who are slaves to outward appearances - it comes in the form not of a check with a specific dollar amount on it, but in being allowed to dump their emissions and pollution on the rest of us FOR FREE.

As the credit card add would say about these subsidies:Abound: $60 MSolyndra: $500+MDirty Energy: Priceless.....

Oil and gas companies get one, count it one write off other industries don't get. Accelerated depreciation on the cost of drilling a well. I am all for ending corporate welfare but let's do it across the board including pie in the sky green industries.

Mike_In_hartsel wrote:Yawn. Another feel-good piece about a technology that is not economically competitive without government mandates and tax payer subsidies.

We only have their word about the rate increases and what will come. Radical environmentalists are always pitching the line that they know what is best for us. They love to spend our money on their pet projects.

Yawn. Yet another anti-alternative energy post that is only fitting for America, the only place where it is politicized. I would guess that MikeM or Jake have never designed and used a solar energy system or other, as I and many other people in the world have, so their view is unqualified. Let me further that by writing that they will undergo Xcel's rate increases as well supporting existing subsidies to the oil/gas companies, whether they deny it or not.I have heard of 2, yes 2 solar companies that have gone bankrupt. Did you stop banking or buying cars when those many companies went bankrupt? Wait... they didn't go bankrupt, both bush and obama bailed them out."Radical environmentalists", "Obama's EPA assault." How bleeding heart this writing is. That's ok... Americans will place and use their own alternative energy systems, regardless of the politics of America and the government's stance on the issue, just watch.

Last edited by familyortiz on July 10th, 2012, 8:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mike_In_hartsel wrote:Yawn. Another feel-good piece about a technology that is not economically competitive without government mandates and tax payer subsidies.

We only have their word about the rate increases and what will come. Radical environmentalists are always pitching the line that they know what is best for us. They love to spend our money on their pet projects.

Dirty energy only APPEARS to be cheaper because it can transfer the cost of it's pollution and emissions to the rest of us. If made to for these externalities, dirty energy would be seen for what it really is: very expensive...

Sheesh, not that again.

It's a bogus argument for two reasons:1. Externalities are not quantifiable. You cannot combine something that's non-quantifiable with definable numbers and come up with any meaningful answer.2. These externalities completely ignore the externalities that are beneficial, such as giving warmth and light to people who'd otherwise shiver in the cold and the dark and allowing people to travel efficiently at will.

“I'm not a dictator.” -- Barack Obama, March 2013“As a president, I can do whatever I want.” -- Barack Obama, February 2014

Mike_In_hartsel wrote:Yawn. Another feel-good piece about a technology that is not economically competitive without government mandates and tax payer subsidies.

We only have their word about the rate increases and what will come. Radical environmentalists are always pitching the line that they know what is best for us. They love to spend our money on their pet projects.

Dirty energy only APPEARS to be cheaper because it can transfer the cost of it's pollution and emissions to the rest of us. If made to for these externalities, dirty energy would be seen for what it really is: very expensive...

This post is true... all one can do against it is a thumbs down.More to the point and one for those harping about subsidies or corporate welfare, why is it that we all have to pay for the fire losses, in numerous ways? The insurance companies SOCIALIZE their losses. Congratulations comrades! You blindly support socialism more than you would ever admit.

We know that Hickenlooper was referring to immediate efforts to contain the fire, but we urge Coloradans to interpret his words as a broader call to action to decrease our state's contribution of greenhouse gas pollution to our nation's hefty share of the world's emissions.

The left's mantra in full force: Never, ever let a crisis go to waste. Well down you Alinskyites.

PhilLeshFan wrote:"Bark beetle infestations, exacerbated by warmer winters, have turned forests into tinderboxes."...The current state of commercial solar energy is at best a mess, and at worst a total political and economic fraud. Note the solar energy companies that were recipients of Obama's free-money giveaway, and who are not shut down through bankruptcy.

Yes indeed, it will be nice when solar energy and other renewable energy sources are commercially viable. And the day may come when that is so. But that day is not at hand. How much of Excel Energy's acquiescence to the renewable energy crowd is simply a politically expedient move, in an attempt to keep that crowd from hampering Excel's business?...Obama's EPA assault on our current energy sources is going to raise the cost of electricity to countless people, beginning in 2014, when most of his new regulations go into effect. This is going to hit the average consumer hard in the wallet.

Abound, Solyndra did get millions in support. But that pales in comparison to the monies that dirty energy gets. And dirty energy's money is in a much more palatable form for people (like you??) who are slaves to outward appearances - it comes in the form not of a check with a specific dollar amount on it, but in being allowed to dump their emissions and pollution on the rest of us FOR FREE.

As the credit card add would say about these subsidies:Abound: $60 MSolyndra: $500+MDirty Energy: Priceless.....

And would thiis same "dirty energy" include Natural Gas? Why, of course! The Sierra Club has done a 180 degree turn from taking millions of dollars from the NG industry 2 years ago and now opposing any and all NG plants to produce electricity! Such hypocrites.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." de Tocqueville. We have arrived at that day.

PhilLeshFan wrote:"Bark beetle infestations, exacerbated by warmer winters, have turned forests into tinderboxes."...The current state of commercial solar energy is at best a mess, and at worst a total political and economic fraud. Note the solar energy companies that were recipients of Obama's free-money giveaway, and who are not shut down through bankruptcy.

Yes indeed, it will be nice when solar energy and other renewable energy sources are commercially viable. And the day may come when that is so. But that day is not at hand. How much of Excel Energy's acquiescence to the renewable energy crowd is simply a politically expedient move, in an attempt to keep that crowd from hampering Excel's business?...Obama's EPA assault on our current energy sources is going to raise the cost of electricity to countless people, beginning in 2014, when most of his new regulations go into effect. This is going to hit the average consumer hard in the wallet.

Abound, Solyndra did get millions in support. But that pales in comparison to the monies that dirty energy gets. And dirty energy's money is in a much more palatable form for people (like you??) who are slaves to outward appearances - it comes in the form not of a check with a specific dollar amount on it, but in being allowed to dump their emissions and pollution on the rest of us FOR FREE.

As the credit card add would say about these subsidies:Abound: $60 MSolyndra: $500+MDirty Energy: Priceless.....

And would thiis same "dirty energy" include Natural Gas? Why, of course! The Sierra Club has done a 180 degree turn from taking millions of dollars from the NG industry 2 years ago and now opposing any and all NG plants to produce electricity! Such hypocrites.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." de Tocqueville. We have arrived at that day.

PhilLeshFan wrote:"Bark beetle infestations, exacerbated by warmer winters, have turned forests into tinderboxes."...The current state of commercial solar energy is at best a mess, and at worst a total political and economic fraud. Note the solar energy companies that were recipients of Obama's free-money giveaway, and who are not shut down through bankruptcy.

Yes indeed, it will be nice when solar energy and other renewable energy sources are commercially viable. And the day may come when that is so. But that day is not at hand. How much of Excel Energy's acquiescence to the renewable energy crowd is simply a politically expedient move, in an attempt to keep that crowd from hampering Excel's business?...Obama's EPA assault on our current energy sources is going to raise the cost of electricity to countless people, beginning in 2014, when most of his new regulations go into effect. This is going to hit the average consumer hard in the wallet.

Abound, Solyndra did get millions in support. But that pales in comparison to the monies that dirty energy gets. And dirty energy's money is in a much more palatable form for people (like you??) who are slaves to outward appearances - it comes in the form not of a check with a specific dollar amount on it, but in being allowed to dump their emissions and pollution on the rest of us FOR FREE.

As the credit card add would say about these subsidies:Abound: $60 MSolyndra: $500+MDirty Energy: Priceless.....

Oil and gas companies get one, count it one write off other industries don't get. Accelerated depreciation on the cost of drilling a well. I am all for ending corporate welfare but let's do it across the board including pie in the sky green industries.

I wasn't talking about low-dollar EXPLICIT subsidies, but the PRICELESS value of being allowed to pollute for free, and dumping the cost of that on everyone else.

PhilLeshFan wrote:"Bark beetle infestations, exacerbated by warmer winters, have turned forests into tinderboxes."...The current state of commercial solar energy is at best a mess, and at worst a total political and economic fraud. Note the solar energy companies that were recipients of Obama's free-money giveaway, and who are not shut down through bankruptcy.

Yes indeed, it will be nice when solar energy and other renewable energy sources are commercially viable. And the day may come when that is so. But that day is not at hand. How much of Excel Energy's acquiescence to the renewable energy crowd is simply a politically expedient move, in an attempt to keep that crowd from hampering Excel's business?...Obama's EPA assault on our current energy sources is going to raise the cost of electricity to countless people, beginning in 2014, when most of his new regulations go into effect. This is going to hit the average consumer hard in the wallet.

Abound, Solyndra did get millions in support. But that pales in comparison to the monies that dirty energy gets. And dirty energy's money is in a much more palatable form for people (like you??) who are slaves to outward appearances - it comes in the form not of a check with a specific dollar amount on it, but in being allowed to dump their emissions and pollution on the rest of us FOR FREE.

As the credit card add would say about these subsidies:Abound: $60 MSolyndra: $500+MDirty Energy: Priceless.....

And would thiis same "dirty energy" include Natural Gas? Why, of course! The Sierra Club has done a 180 degree turn from taking millions of dollars from the NG industry 2 years ago and now opposing any and all NG plants to produce electricity! Such hypocrites.

Mike_In_hartsel wrote:Yawn. Another feel-good piece about a technology that is not economically competitive without government mandates and tax payer subsidies.

We only have their word about the rate increases and what will come. Radical environmentalists are always pitching the line that they know what is best for us. They love to spend our money on their pet projects.

Dirty energy only APPEARS to be cheaper because it can transfer the cost of it's pollution and emissions to the rest of us. If made to for these externalities, dirty energy would be seen for what it really is: very expensive...

Sheesh, not that again.

It's a bogus argument for two reasons:1. Externalities are not quantifiable. You cannot combine something that's non-quantifiable with definable numbers and come up with any meaningful answer.2. These externalities completely ignore the externalities that are beneficial, such as giving warmth and light to people who'd otherwise shiver in the cold and the dark and allowing people to travel efficiently at will.

The problem with externalities is that they EXIST. The fact that they are not quantifiable does not mean they are non-existent or that they are irrelevant.So-called "Beneficial Externalities" are almost always captured and marketed. I guess a homeless person sleeping over a warm street grate is the exception, if you want to stand on ceremony about that...

Bark Beetle infestations turn the forests into tinder boxes, but using clean energy will reduce wild fires because we believe in global warming.

The global warmist crowd can turn any weather related disaster into a justification for their agenda, even though the same kinds of disasters have been happening for centuries. When the weather is warmer than normal it is cited as evidence that global warming is true, but when the weather is cooler than normal then they remind us that "weather is not climate".

we urge Coloradans to interpret his words as a broader call to action to decrease our state's contribution of greenhouse gas pollution to our nation's hefty share of the world's emissions.

Watch what you wish for regarding using the generic term green house gasses. We've been quite short of water vapor (a greenhouse gas) this year as we usually are in this state. No one welcomed the condensed water vapor emissions that drenched us these past few days. I say anything we can do to get more water vapor condensing over the front range this year the better. The lights will burn late at liberal headquarters trying to figure how to fix blame for anthropologic global wetness and how best to tax it out of existence.

Mike_In_hartsel wrote:Yawn. Another feel-good piece about a technology that is not economically competitive without government mandates and tax payer subsidies.

We only have their word about the rate increases and what will come. Radical environmentalists are always pitching the line that they know what is best for us. They love to spend our money on their pet projects.

Dirty energy only APPEARS to be cheaper because it can transfer the cost of it's pollution and emissions to the rest of us. If made to for these externalities, dirty energy would be seen for what it really is: very expensive...

Sheesh, not that again.

It's a bogus argument for two reasons:1. Externalities are not quantifiable. You cannot combine something that's non-quantifiable with definable numbers and come up with any meaningful answer.2. These externalities completely ignore the externalities that are beneficial, such as giving warmth and light to people who'd otherwise shiver in the cold and the dark and allowing people to travel efficiently at will.

The problem with externalities is that they EXIST. The fact that they are not quantifiable does not mean they are non-existent or that they are irrelevant.So-called "Beneficial Externalities" are almost always captured and marketed. I guess a homeless person sleeping over a warm street grate is the exception, if you want to stand on ceremony about that...

Of course externalities exist. But to say that beneficial externalities are "almost always captured and marketed" is silly. For one thing, if that was true, they would not be considered externalities. And after all, what monetary value can you place on someone's being kept warm or being able to travel where they want on their terms? Yet those benefits are real and more than trivial.

Trying to combine externalities that are detrimental, while ignoring those that are beneficial, with the price of fossil fuels and come up with something called "very expensive", and calling that real is absurd. It would be like trying to balance your checking account by adding the number of angels that dance on the head of a pin to the bottom line of your check book.

“I'm not a dictator.” -- Barack Obama, March 2013“As a president, I can do whatever I want.” -- Barack Obama, February 2014